STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. versus NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 07-10-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 697 
STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. 
v. 
NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8378 of 2015) 
OCTOBER 07, 2015 . 
• 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land acquisition - Resumption of land - Acquisition of 
land in favour of respondent for specified purpose by 
appellant-State - Passing of award wherein compensation C 
payable to the landowners computed- Thereafter, execution 
of deed of conveyance by appellant-State in favour of 
respondent, however, respondent violated the terms and 
conditions of deed of conveyance - Respondent sold the D 
land without permission of appellant-State - Resumption 
notice to respondent by appellant State - Writ petition by 
respondents seeking quashing of resumption notice - High 
Court set aside the said Notice and directions to appel/ant-
State to comply with the principles of natural justice - On E 
appeal, held: Conduct of the respondent was not only unfair 
but, in fact, it smacks of fraud, malpractice and malfeasance 
- Resumption notice' was issued to the respondent because 
of its actions, so respondent has forfeited whatsoever rights 
it may have enjoyed over the land- Thus, the order passed F 
by the High Court set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The view of the High Court that the Deed 
of Conveyance is founded on the Act and, therefore, G 
contractual rights would not be the only determinative 
elements in the dispute is concurred with. The High 
·Court's opinion that the principles of natural justice are 
an "inalienable part of the· rule of law" is endorsed; H 
697 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A abidance with these principles is necessary even de hors 
specific stipulation in this regard. There was no 
permission either in law or as per the Deed of 
Conveyance which authorised the respondent to sell the 
land without prior written permission of the appellant-
s State. Had the Executing Court been properly apprised 
of the terms and conditions ofU1e Conveyance Deed and 
the true factual circumstances of the case, its 
conclusions would have been diametrically different. 
The respondent cannot take advantage of its own 
C transgressions and legal duplicity and shenanigans. The 
plea of the respondent is that it was saddled with higher 
compensation awarded by the District Court and 
thereafter by the High Court, and that requisite resources 
0 
were not available with it to satisfy the decreed amount 
and that consequently it filed in Court, instead with the 
appellant-State, the application for permission for private 
sale. The said higher compensation was computed at a 
mere Rs. 8.8 lacs which stands in stark contrast to the 
E quantum of Rs.4 crore which was planned to be invested 
by the respondent in the ma!'lufacture of sheet glass. 
Significantly, the respondent was neither asked nor did 
it proffer details of its other properties against which the 
decree in favour of the original landowners could have 
F been satisfied and satiated. The respondent also hid from 
the Executing Court the fact that the burden to pay any 
enhanced compensation lay, in the first place, on the 
appellant-State and not the respondent. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 
1 O] [707-C-D; 708-B-G] 
G 
1.2 Respondent failed altogether to perform the 
terms and conditions of the Conveyance, which throws 
serious doubts on its intention to establish a sheet glass 
factory and commence production on the acquired land. 
H Respondent failed to establish and commence 
STATE OF HARYANA& ORS. v. NORTHERN IND!AN 
699 
GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. 
production in the sheet-glass factory within the time A 
frame provided in the Deed of Conveyance; that it used 
the subject acquired land for purposes other than those 
allowed by the Deed; that it sold the acquired land, 
without written permission or any permission worth 
mentioning, to third parties. Despite all these B 
happenings, the respondent failed to make even a single 
representation before the appellant-State. [Paras 13, 14) 
[710-F; 711-B-D] 
1.3 The conduct of the Respondent has not only C 
been utterly unfair but, in fact, it smacks of fraud, 
malpractice and malfeasance. The respondent in its 
affidavit before the High Court stated that 118 Sale Deeds 
were executed in favour of various third parties with 
several sales being in 2004-05. This. is sought to be D 
vindicated by the respondent on the ground that since 
the land was returned to it in 2004 after the quashing of 
the acquisiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.